Is it bad for a baby to see you masturbating?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (336 of them)

"Hi, Uncle Steve, I just wandered if it was... OK to... wank next to your baby?"

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

Splashing around in that hot water with my woman, I began to get ideas, as they say. After a while I placed my body in such a position in the water that the baby could not see my hard-on.
I did this by going deeper and deeper in the water, like a dinosaur, and letting the green slime and dead fish cover me over.

― Øystein (Øystein), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

WTF???

"Hi, Uncle Steve, I just wandered if it was... OK to... wank next to your baby?" - this is making me roffle like a madman.

― Rumpie (lil drummer girl parumpumpumpu), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

You could play Freak On A Leash. Errr, that's a different thread, I guess. Seriously, ew, masturbating in the same room as your child?!? Of course the kid's not going to know what you're doing, but don't/would you feel uncomfortable wanking in his/her presence?

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah, there's actually a lot of research on infant learning that suggests they're considerably more conscious than we usually think of them as being. Assuming this already happened, 1) you seriously need to learn to reign in your impulses and 2) it probably won't do any long term damage unless it becomes a habit. In the eyes of the law, of course, it'd count as child molestation and get you ten years, and not without reason.

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Children are most receptive to learning and absorbing new things between the ages of 0-5, yeah? WANK AWAY.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

'absorbing new things'

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

thank you nick.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's an offense, yeah?

(I know I'm offended but you can do time for it?)

― Rumpie (lil drummer girl parumpumpumpu), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Not sure if it's bad but it's definitely funny.

― teeny (teeny), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Of course it's not bad, but I think it's just ICKY.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

Actually, fuck it, I think it's bad.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

Really bad.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

EVIL!

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

Do you have the kid on a leash while you're masturbating?

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

If so, double ew with yuck on top.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 13:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm hyperventilating now.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

With excitement!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

doing it with the dog looking is the worst. Every time you look over they look away and pretend their not watching.

― aylene (Dorca), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

red rocket!

― Øystein (Øystein), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

Actually I'm PANTING. Shit, what about masturbating when you're PREGNANT? You keep on running away from the baby while trying to get yer rocks off.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

First of all, even if the baby was conscious of what's happening and if was close enough to actually see what the person is doing (both big ifs), it would have no idea of what masturbation is, so all it would see is someone moving his/her hand. You all seem to be saying that it feels weird for someone to wank with a baby in his/her presence, which is probably true, but that's only because of the culture and time-dependent ideas that, a) masturbation is wrong, or at least kinda yucky, and b) children and sexuality should be in no contact with each other, even if the child in question would be in no way affected by what's happening.

Is it wrong for a couple to have sex while their baby is sleeping in the same room, knowing that the baby might wake up? Or if the baby isn't sleeping at all? Or for a couple to have sex in their bedroom, with their children sleeping in adjoining room, even though they might wake up and hear the noises? How are these things different from the original poster's question?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

First of all, even if the baby was conscious of what's happening and if was close enough to actually see what the person is doing (both big ifs), it would have no idea of what masturbation is, so all it would see is someone moving his/her hand.

You forgot that it could have sperm in his eye.

EW!

I'm trying to think of all the posters who recently became a parent.

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

How do kids get siblings, then? Not just by anniversaries to hotel rooms?

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

'someone just moving his/her hand'

up and down their COCK.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

When I was a kid I did hear my parents have sex on several occasions, and once I walked into their bedroom while they were doing it, but I don't think it ruined my life in any way. And I was old enough to be conscious of what they were doing, unlike a less than a year old baby.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

it would have no idea of what masturbation is, so all it would see is someone moving his/her hand.

with their genitals growing bigger and then stuff squirting out of it.

anyway i think the worst part is you knowing the baby being there and still doing it. i mean, that's like sick. it's almost as bad as shagging in a room where there's a huge photo of your parents somewhere in it.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

but I don't think it ruined my life in any way.

dude i think it has.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

'someone just moving his/her hand'
up and down their COCK.

And you think an infant of that age has some conception of what such movement means? I was at least ten before I learned it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, people's reaction seems to be, "Eww, this is wrong!" without questioning themselves why they think it's wrong.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

ok, moving beyond vanilla stuff, would pissing/a2m/etc be ok in front of a child, 'because it woudln't understand'?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

What's "A2M"? And what do you mean by pissing?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

i just had a thought about why or how it is wrong and i think i've pinned it down to mainly growing a boner and pulling it out and choking it out while you are in the room with a baby. i mean. it isn't whether the baby knows what you're doing, it's whether you know what you're doing.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's kind of disrespectful to say the least, unless you're saying infants don't deserve respect.

do you think it's alright to be whacking one off in an intensive care ward next to someone in a coma?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yes, that what I meant by saying that the reaction people get is caused by cultural conditioning. In other times sexuality with children present, even children old enough to comprehend what's going on, was not such a taboo.

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

so sex with 12-year-old boys is ok, as per ancient greece, tuomas?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

Can you be disrespectfl towards someone who doesn't know his moralities are being offended? Or towards someone who doesn't have any sort of morality yet?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

is mandatory female circumcision ok, because it's just a matter of culturation?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

yes you can. you're showing the disrespect because you know the moralities. this is the reason how you can be disrepectful to dead people.

xpost.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

so sex with 12-year-old boys is ok, as per ancient greece, tuomas?

I said children present, not with children. The incest taboo exists in most cultures and times. The youngsters older Athenian men had sex with had reached puberty, I think, they were probably older than 12. Of course it sounds wrong from today's point of view, but it's kinda hard to judge such an ancient past with todaysä standards. It was part of a young man's life cycle back then, I doubt most of the were traumatized by it, since it was part of everyday life.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

is mandatory female circumcision ok, because it's just a matter of culturation?

No, and there's a difference. Female circumcision does concrete physical harm to women. Wanking before a baby most likely doesn't affect it all, not even mentally.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

but it isn't everyday life now that people jerk off next to you when you were a baby is it??!!?!

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

but sex with 12 year old boys did physical harms to the children's butts.

xpost

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

Tuomas in taking extreme moral relativist position shocka!

Just don't open up the can of worms of whether fat people are sexy.

(note: They're not)

― Seems2Me, Monday, 5 December 2005 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

but it isn't everyday life now that people jerk off next to you when you were a baby is it??!!?!

No, but the baby isn't aware of things like a teenager is.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah but they might FIND OUT when they grow up!

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

why does the occurence of 'concrete physical harm' change the essential moral question?

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not a moral relativist, for example I'm strongly against female circumcision. I don't necessarily think, however, that being aware of sexuality is harmful to children, and I definitely don't think sexuality is harmful to children who aren't aware of it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Tuomas, it's demonstrably the case that children who're exposed to adult sex acts process the information somehow - it doesn't just "go right past them": nothing "goes right past" children - and any clinician who's worked with children can tell you how the damage manifests itself: in acting out. Again, the threadstarter probably hasn't done any damage; and, again, it's probably not a good idea to jack off with babies in the room.

Jesus Christ, man, for sure society could stand to loosen up about sexuality a little, but exposing infants to adult sexuality is surely not the place to start.

xpost Tuomas you really, really ought to check out some of the available research about what infants are & aren't aware of

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's not "sexuality" Tuomas - it's ADULT sexuality! children have their own world, which take enough work to navigate, without the thorny world of adult things getting in the way

heh heh "things"

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 236 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

cultural conditioning has its points.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, December 5, 2005 6:49 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol

― horseshoe, Monday, 30 August 2010 00:30 (2 years ago) Permalink

only if it is the correct conditioning.

― rage for the machine (banaka), Monday, 30 August 2010 00:32 (2 years ago) Permalink

Also, this thread needs an overbearing Brooklyn father to come up, cuff it on the back of the head and say, "Jeeeesus Christ, what the FUCK is wrong with you?"

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Monday, December 5, 2005 2:19 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

― horseshoe, Monday, 30 August 2010 00:36 (2 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

Is it bad for dick cheney to see you masturbating

― show me your ticks (San Te), Monday, 24 January 2011 20:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

During your baby's first month, she can focus only about 20cm to 30cm away

― the late great, Friday, 11 May 2012 02:30 (1 year ago) Permalink

what if it's a boy?
i bet you he could see further. because boys are better. it's science.

― Porto for Pyros (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 11 May 2012 04:28 (1 year ago) Permalink

"He was in and out and round about, doing this sort of thing all over the house, "

Impossible not to imagine this sentence as a lyric

― Race Against Rockism (Myonga Vön Bontee), Friday, 11 May 2012 06:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

During your baby's first month, she can focus only about 20cm to 30cm away

will make the future repressed memories of a shuffling blur moaning to itself in Finnish all the more mysterious

― like Joe Pasquale and Gandhi (Noodle Vague), Friday, 11 May 2012 06:30 (1 year ago) Permalink

It's the rest of the song I worry about...

xpost You know what? The one big ILX fallacy (oo-er) is that Tuomas was the original poster...

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2012 06:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

i was trying to get at that if the baby can see you you're doing it too close to the baby

― the late great, Friday, 11 May 2012 06:32 (1 year ago) Permalink

http://efukt.com/20614_Babysitting_Fail.html

― dylannn, Friday, 11 May 2012 07:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

ok, moving beyond vanilla stuff, would pissing/a2m/etc be ok in front of a child, 'because it woudln't understand'?
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, December 5, 2005 9:36 AM (6 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― Boris Kutyurkokhov (Eisbaer), Saturday, 12 May 2012 02:06 (1 year ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

― buzza, Friday, 31 August 2012 03:04 (9 months ago) Permalink

this simon guy

― dylannn, Friday, 31 August 2012 03:33 (9 months ago) Permalink

buncha squares

― call all destroyer, Friday, 31 August 2012 03:38 (9 months ago) Permalink

9 months pass...

FAMILY groups are demanding The Janoskians apologise for the baby skit Little Britain star Matt Lucas slammed as ''repulsive'' and ''witless''.

In the sketch, uploaded to YouTube, members of the Glenroy boy band are seen simulating lewd acts in bus shelters, shopping centres and under escalators, with one member telling a mother "your baby's sexy''.

Leza Sullivan, of child protection group Bravehearts said: ''Simulating sexual acts in front of a child, and exposing a child to that, can be classed as sexual assault.

''Then, to make fun of it, and trivialise it, is appalling. But they took it one step too far when they started engaging actively with children.''

Bravehearts and the Australian Family Association said The Janoskians record label, Sony Music, should force their act to take the video down.

''The Sony brand should not be associated with this behaviour,'' Ms Sullivan said.

Anti-abuse lobby group, Safe Australia Movement, said the clip contains ''paedophilic references aimed at a six-week-old baby and her mother''.

''To harass a mother in such a way is abusive. Anyone that accepts this behavior is accepting abuse,'' said spokesman William Fagan.

But the group defended the video in a series of tweets on Wednesday night from their official Twitter account.

The five-member group said it didn't regret filming the video.

"OK guys so the hole (sic) purpose of public wanking is to see unseen reactions,'' the Janoskians said.

"It's never been done before and it's interesting to see reactions.

"For the people who think we took it to (sic) far have really closed minds about the subject.

"It was acting and if you couldn't tell we weren't really wanking. Not only the baby would never understand what's going on.

"The hole (sic) purpose was to see the mother's reaction ... and it was good. Definitely our favourite video.''

But Terri Kelleher, of the Australian Family Association, said the clip was ''highly offensive''.

''They should have been arrested,'' Ms Kelleher said.

Ms Kelleher added to calls for Sony to take action against the boy band and also urged parents to discourage their children from supporting The Janoskians, who are performing shows for touring giant, Live Nation, later this month.

Little Britain's Lucas took to Twitter on Wednesday night to slam the video.

''The group member claims that the baby sexually excites him and proceeds to stand by the pram while pretending to masturbate, to the obvious and not unreasonable distress of the baby's mother and grandmother,'' Lucas said.

''Am I too old to get it? Maybe I am. If so, I'm glad. It's repulsive.

''It's probably already criminal. It's certainly utterly witless.''

Sony Music did not respond to calls for comment before deadline.

― dimension nickröss (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 6 June 2013 11:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

christ when Matt Lucas calls you out on being repulsive and witless

― sleepish resistance (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 6 June 2013 11:34 (1 week ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.